Back in the days before cell phones, when people used CB radios in cars and trucks, there was an expression you used out of courtesy when you wanted to break into a conversation. You said "breaker breaker," and then you said whatever you wanted to say.

So, "breaker breaker." I'm confused.

The fact that you publish something doesn't make you an expert. I have the technology right here in my home to publish a book on innovations in close-up card magic, or even a DVD on it, yet what I know about card magic can be written on the head of a pin with a magic marker. It might sell among the magic crowd at first, but soon the buyers would realize that I didn't have a clue what I was saying.

Hmm. Let me put it this way: I hope they would realize it.

What made Dai's book sell for $20 during the depression wasn't that he wrote it, but that he wrote it. He already had the reputation. A lot of the stuff I'm seeing for sale nowadays is silly, written by people who seem to just want to jump on the bandwagon and publish something for the express purpose of publishing it and becoming "known." It's almost like what you publish isn't as important as the fact that you published something. Magic has gotten to the point that buying stuff is as much the whole point as performing it.

From the threads I read here, sometimes I think that buying stuff and being up on the most current stuff is the point of magic today.

But then that gets right back to the issue of "pros do the same tricks for different audiences and hobbyists do different tricks for the same audience." So if the whole point of "magic as a hobby" is to buy everything that comes out, then okay, that's fine with me, but I wouldn't consider some of today's "published people" experts. Like I said, I have the technology too.

Hey George Ledo before I respond let me ask a question? Would you say Dai Vernon was an authority on magic?

How about Erdnase?

Was Erdnase and authority on hustling?

Was he an authority on card sharping?

Is John Scarne and authority on the subject matter that he published?

Thanks in advance.

Glenn,

A question for you:

How would you feel if someone at a magic club showed you a printed booklet which had your entire performing script for a show you did last month and wanted to ask you about a routine you did in your show?

Real question

Jon

Makes my point exactly George. Vernon's manuscript sold because of HIM. Now when you take him out of the equasion then indeed would it have sold? People do not become experts because of what they write, they are experts SO THEY WRITE. OR at least that is how I think it should be.

Oh and Glenn, if everyone publishes for so many reasons, (since the request to stop has gone unheeded) let me ask this.

What would there be to expose, if everyone didn't keep putting out things to expose?

Glenn: Yes, I would absolutely say that each of them was an authority (although I'd rather use the term "expert") on what they were writing about.

My point was that Dai, and by implication these other folks, were experts on their subject before they published their material. They didn't become experts because they published their material.

Publishing has been described many times as a pathway to being recognized as an expert. Whether what you're saying makes any sense or not is irrelevant: as long as some people are willing to accept what you said, to them you have the published credits and therefore you're an expert. Nowadays, with self-publishing being as easy as it is, anyone can become an instant "expert."

That is an interesting question Jonathan Townsend - that in a way has happened to me but not on my whole show only one or two magic routines.

How I would feel? Not sure. I would think that this guy might perhaps be learning my act and perhaps wanted to do it. How would a guy doing my whole act word for word make me feel? Well I probably wouldn't be happy about it.

Does that answer you question?

But having said that when I was a kid growing up on Sunday nights we used to watch the Ed Sullivan show. And while watching one week we saw a guy do my Dads night club act - word for word. Dad did the rope tie on the Sullivan show when it was called toast of the town. He never did his whole act and he was saving it for a comeback.

Well, my Dad wasn't to happy at that.

This kind of thing can happen and has happened in magic.

Just my opinion.

Posted: Oct 16, 2007 1:43pm
Thanks for talking George Ledo my reason for asking the question was to try to set a more precise language in the way we were talking. Now having done so we can talk a little more clear.
Quote:


On 2007-10-16 13:06, George Ledo wrote:
Glenn: Yes, I would absolutely say that each of them was an authority (although I'd rather use the term "expert") on what they were writing about.


On this George I would agree because it is my opinion that there is a small difference in the use of the word expert and authority. In my opinion one can be an expert at what could be called card magic. But one does not get the title of being an authority until one is "recognized" by others

In the case or the situation of Vernon and the 20 dollar manuscript Vernon was "recognized" by others as knowing his stuff and that made his manuscript wanted by others.

Although one could argue about a person from a point of view could be a recognized expert or a recognized authority on a subject as well as argue that one could be an unknown expert or an unknown authority.

But having said that in the case of the 20 dollar manuscript Vernon added to his reputation in my opinion of being a recognized authority or a recognized expert when he published it. Then later added more to his reputation as other things were published.

And in my opinion John Scarne did this as well in the gaming gambling market when he went after a different market and a different audience.

(in my opinion)
Quote:


On 2007-10-16 13:06, George Ledo wrote:
Publishing has been described many times as a pathway to being recognized as an expert. Whether what you're saying makes any sense or not is irrelevant: as long as some people are willing to accept what you said, to them you have the published credits and therefore you're an expert.


Before I respond to this I want to say that everything I publish is self published. My Magic show is self produced. My magic show is self written and self promoted.

Now having said that I do not claim to be an expert or an authority on magic with the exception of my promotion to the lay audience.
Quote:


On 2007-10-16 13:06, George Ledo wrote:
Nowadays, with self-publishing being as easy as it is, anyone can become an instant "expert."


Sorry George here I do not agree and this is my opinion of why. I would say that anyone can "claim" to be an expert.

Just because a person may see themselves as an expert - at that point perhaps being a self proclaimed expert before publishing - the title if this person might be an authority or an expert is self proclaimed until they are recognized or judged by others.

Having the chops is important in my opinion but the published stuff will also come under the judgment of others that may have "more skill" than the person that published the product.

That is why in my opinion in the world of card sharp products there is a lot of negative comments about many of the products that have been published. But that could be another thread that is to say one may be claiming to be an expert or an authority and then another claiming that they are not.

It is my opinion that it depends on the target audience and they will have their opinion about the "claim" and that will reflect in sales if it is a magic product or bookings if we are talking about selling as a service.

And again that is my opinion.

Glenn, I think we're saying the same thing in several places:

Quote: "On this George I would agree because it is my opinion that there is a small difference in the use of the word expert and authority. In my opinion one can be an expert at what could be called card magic. But one does not get the title of being an authority until one is "recognized" by others"

Okay, I'll buy that.

Quote: "Before I respond to this I want to say that everything I publish is self published. My Magic show is self produced. My magic show is self written and self promoted."

I wasn't implying that there's anything wrong with self-publishing. All I was saying is that it's very easy (okay, call it possible for us common folks) to do from the technical standpoint: the word processor, the digital cameras, the computer and DVD burner, the local Kinko's, and so forth. If I were a kid today, living at home, and didn't have to work for a living, take care of the house, and so forth, I would be able to make the time to self-publish and promote a book or DVD on close-up card magic, even though I know very little about it. Would that make me an expert on the subject? No. Would it make me an authority on it? Well, I guess it would depend on the people who bought it.

X = Unknown Quantity
Spurt = Drip under pressure

X + SPURT = Unknown Drip under pressure

Yes I agree it is easy to self publish if one has the tools. But having the tools in no way is a guarantee that the end result will have "good content" or be judged by the market as having "good content".

In my opinion that is part of the problem with magic today. It is easier to publish than it is to develop good material. Having good content was in my opinion what makes the product remembered and the person judged as an authority on the subject matter.

And with each good product with good content the reputation would grow.

Just the same in the performing world. With each show the reputation grows of how good the entertainer is. Because in my opinion the best form of advertising is word of mouth.

But having said that I still think that if a performer has original ideas, or comes up with new routines. One of the best ways to protect the ideas from people that might steal their act - is to publish them and get the credit. Because if they don't - like in my Dads case with his rope tie and his act - someone else most likely will.

Just my opinion.

I've waded through this refuse heap of a thread and I couldn't find it. Has anyone but me even tried to answer the poor thread starters post? Has anyone but me even kinda addressed his original question?

No Drew, you da man.

As usual the only voice of reason and correctness.

Your right no other thread in the history of the Café' has been so off track. We are all horridly sorry.

You mean this "Question"?........

To answer the "Question" one must go to the discussion on the linked blog, right? Have you gone to the linked blog Drew? Otherwise I would imagine you didn't answer the "Poor Thread Starters" question either.

Otherwise, it seemed less a question than a advertisement for another place to discuss the issue. Not that there is anything wrong with that.


Or did I miss the question mark?

Yes Drew, I've made some attempts to address the issues which Tim's blog post presents.

And I encourage others to read that blog and bring that discussion into our dialog here as well.

Did you read either the blog in question or my very first reply to this thread? I think that will answer your question. I outlined answers to every question he asked in that blog and have seen no one else do that in this thread. I haven't even seen an opinion on my answer to the question. Some tangent started and that's all this thread has been.

Drew, are you the anonymous person who wrote a comment on the blog saying "this is not rocket science, people"? Cause that kind of sounds like you.

Just wondering.

Jeff

When have I ever given an answer to a thought provoking question that was that short? No, it wasn't me. Had I replied to the blog it would have been a cut and pasted copy of my first reply in this thread.

It also doesn't seem like you to write anonymously.

But I must confess, my post was based on the misunderstanding that you had responded on the blog, and I was trying to figure out which post was yours. Only later did I realize that you mean you had posted a thorough reply *here* on the Café.

Jeff

No blood, no foul.

Try this one from my blog ethics questions:

PROMOTIONAL CLAIMS - Many performers have the "real story" about how they got into magic, and a more interesting version of the story they use for publicity purposes. This slight stretching of the truth seems okay. But where is the line drawn? Which of these claims, in your opinion, has crossed the line?

The performer claims to be good friends with Copperfield or Blaine and says they taught him a few tricks.

The performer claims they have won various awards - which they haven't.

The performer "upgrades" certain awards from being "Winner of close up competition" to "National champion magician".

The performer edits certain quotes to make them sound much better (like movie promoters often do with reviews).

The performer claims to have worked at certain venues or on certain TV shows when they haven't.

The performer claims to have "performed" at a venue (when they simply did a trick in the foyer and were not on the bill) or to have "appeared" on a TV show (when they were actually in the audience or just were glimpsed on camera).

They all have crossed the line. If you are prepared to be called out on these claims sometime in the future then go ahead and claim what you want. They may come back to bite you.